House of Representatives To Discuss Wiretapping In Closed Session

Nimey brings word that for the first time in 25 years, the US House of Representatives will use a closed-door session to discuss proposed wiretapping legislation. The old legislation expired last month when government officials could not agree on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications providers who assisted with the wiretaps. The most recent version of the bill, proposed by House democrats, does not include telecom immunity. Because of that, President Bush has stated his willingness to veto the bill. The Yahoo article notes, "The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices."

Comments

Interesting proposition

[iknowcss]

They wouldn't possibly oppose someone bugging the session room while they discuss, would they?

Re:Interesting proposition

[vux984]

Irony: incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

How ironic that a dictionary would fail to define irony properly. :)

Seriously? Incongruity between the actual and the normal/expected result?

That is NOT really irony. For something to be ironic there has to significant force behind the expectation, and the result can't merely be incongrouous it has to be more a contradiction.

If I say 'its a beautiful day' and its actually 'partly cloudy and may be even just a touch chilly' that is not ironic. If it were pouring rain and the floods were rising, that would be ironic.

If I pick up a pen I expect it to work not be dried out, but if its dried out that's not irony. If I specifically chose to pick up the pen with the sticker 'gauranteed never to dry up' and carried it around precisely to avoid the hassle of a dried up pen ... and then it was dried up... that would be irony.

Dictionaries often fail to accurately capture the complete meaning of a word, because words are inherently difficult to concisely define with other words. That's no surprise -- the entire point of adding a word to a language is often that other words fail to accurately capture its meaning.

Another example is "underwhelm"; which is defined in one dictionary at least as: "To fail to excite, stimulate, or impress." Again, that doesn't really capture it quite right. If one eats a bagel for breakfast and is not excited stimulated or impressed that doesn't mean one was underwhelmed by it. Its a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

To be underwhelmed is not merely to fail to be impressed, but to becognizant of the fact that you have failed to have been impressed. If you ate a bagel and it made no impression on you, if someone asked you about your breakfast, you'd absently say 'it was fine' without 2nd thought; you haven't been underwhelmed. But if you'd sat there eating your bagel and came to the realization that it really wasn't particularly good, that its taste and texture really did nothing for you, then you might come to say that you found it underwhelming.

Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING.

[SonicSpike]

Yep that's right. America needs a second party.

I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; either the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul.

If more people would refuse to vote for more of the same, then we might actually get politicians with integrity that follow and uphold the rule of law.

Attention: "security personel"

[Anonymous Coward]

We would absolutely love it if you would get a tape and give it to wikileaks. Or Youtube. Or John Stewart.

Re:Attention: "security personel"

[BAM0027]

Nah, you can't vote them out or impeach them. You have to wait for them to do something _really_ heinous, something that would impact a whole bunch of people.

Something worse than the 4,000 military personnel and the thousands of citizens that've died in Iraq.

Something worse than the civil liberties that've been compromised.

Something worse than the trillions of dollars that've been borrowed against future generations for a baseless war.

Something worse than the loss of funds to pay for education.

Nah, just wait for them to do something _really_ awful, like pay for sex.

The Facts

[ewhac]

The law that permits surveillance of foreign communications -- FISA -- did not expire last month, and remains in force. What actually expired was the Orwellian-named "Protect America Act," a temporary amendment to FISA which removed the requirement for any kind of warrant for certain surveillance targets "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States.

Surveillance of foreign targets may still be conducted under the auspices of FISA -- you'll just need to get a warrant. Up to three days after the fact. From the special secret FISA court. Which has never said no. Such hardship.

Schwab

Fear

[Heshler]

"Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war." Would the "War on Drugs" in this case be grounds for the President determining his own powers? While I believe that no one such have such uncheck spying powers, I think the real issue is that the Bush administration has proven, in so many cases, to be inept and untrustworthy, especially with Americans' privacy. How can we trust him when he says (or rather, directly implies) that the result of the bill not passing WILL be a terrorist attack on the US? This is a blatant fear mongering technique; he has not clarified how the program helps fight terrorists, yet he expects everyone to be afraid enough to give him anything he wants. Lately, Republicans have made it sound like the House Democrats are responsible for a coming wave of destruction on America. This emotional play is unacceptable: we need evidence that the wiretapping is actually doing some good, not more fear.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[The Analog Kid]

the idea of NOT granting immunity to those who cooperated with the government sets a bad precedent, undermining the credibility of the U.S. government.

They had a choice not to cooperate, Qwest acted in this manner. I can't imagine the legal departments in these companies never mentioned that this possibly an illegal action. As far as undermining the credibility of the U.S. government, it was undermined when Bush Administration authorized this program.

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[Cadallin]

Sorry, I'm going to have to pull Godwin's law here. I hope that I will articulate why it is justified.

The Bush administration have operated illegally. They have violated the law not just in spirit, but in word. They have pushed warrantless searches and wiretaps. This is not legal. They have advocated, and used, torture in the interrogation of prisoners. This is not legal. They have lied, and used said lies as an excuse to wage aggressive war. This is not legal. They have conspired to hide their actions behind a cloak of shadows, lies, and secrecy. They have refused to disclose the the extent of their actions to the duly elected agents of the People of The United States of America while under oath. This is not Legal. International Law applies whether one agrees to it or not. As much of the top Nazi brass discovered. The Bush administration have used the same tactics: Brute Force, Fear, and a blatant disregard for law, human rights, and human dignity. Any who aid or abet such actions bears blame. They could have refused. They did not.

No. No Immunity for Traitors. No Immunity for Cowards. No Immunity for those aid the destruction of the rights and liberties of free men.

If there is to be any hope for Freedom, for Democracy, hope for any kind of legacy to leave for future generations, on these things must we stand firm.

Lying Republican Scammers

[Doc Ruby]

This stunt is the first time in 25 years that the House has gone into secret session. John Conyers (D-MI), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, skeptically agreed with the move:

The more my colleagues know, the less they believe this Administration's rhetoric. As someone who has chaired classified hearings and reviewed classified materials on this subject, I believe the more information Members receive about this Administration's actions in the area of warrantless surveillance, the more likely they are to reject the Administration's scare tactics and threats. My colleagues who joined me in the hearings and reviewed the Administration's documents have walked away with an inescapable conclusion: the Administration has not made the case for unprecedented spying powers and blanket retroactive immunity for phone companies.

Whether this is a worthwhile exercise or mere grandstanding depends on whether Republicans have groundbreaking new information that would affect the legislative process. There must be a very high bar to urge the House into a secret session for the first time in 25 years. I eagerly await their presentation to see if it clears this threshold. As someone who has seen and heard an enormous amount of information already, I have my doubts.

Leave it to the Republicans. You have to, because they refused to let Democrats call a secret session last year, when Democrats wanted to review classified FISA evidence to decide how to revise FISA as Republicans have demanded (but didn't while they owned the majority):

[House Minority Leader] Boehner's spokesman, Kevin Smith, derided the secret session proposal as a stalling tactic.

"There are clear rules and procedures for how Congress handles classified information," Smith said. "This nonsense is nothing more than another stalling tactic from a bunch of liberals who don't want to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe."

That kind of severe contradiction should disqualify anyone from participation in either "Intelligence" or "Judiciary" decisions.

Re:Lying Republican Scammers

[chitokutai]

Apparently, this is only the third time a secret session has been held since 1830!

Not to mention that the last time it happened in 1983 it was concerning the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. What in the world is going on in our government?!

Re:But it is a matter of principle

[jonberling]

I don't think it was ignorance. I use to be an intelligence analyst for the US Army. When I first heard about the wire tapping program (I'd had only been out for about a year) the first thing that came to my mind is "Holy crap, that must have been illegal!" We were clearly briefed about what we could and couldn't listen to. Domestic calls were 100% off limit. US Citizens, in the US, calling someone in a foreign country were also protected. The reason: the US military isn't used against US citizens (unless martial law is declared). We have law enforcement separate from the military for a reason. If it were the FBI instead of the NSA doing the wiretaps, I think it wouldn't have been as big a issue (At lease at the time I though that, I'm not sure if I think that now.)

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jane Q. Public]

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

It really doesn't get much clearer than that. "Ex post facto" means "retroactive". It does not say "maybe", or "if...". It says NO.

Bush can bitch all he wants, but he is demanding that the Democrats pass a measure that would be blatantly unconstitutional... as clearly unconstitutional as something can be! "No (whatever) shall be passed" is perfectly clear English, hardly subject to debate. And in this case, "whatever" is retroactive laws.

If the Democrats even considered doing such, they would be traitors to the Constitution, to the same extent as Bush.

Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[FleaPlus]

Sorry, but ex post facto only applies when criminalizing a previously legal activity, not the other way around. Otherwise it would also be unconstitutional to do things like grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Re:Explain why.

[Jeremi]

Why is immunity for complying with government requests bad? What possible harm could it do?

If the government requests that you break the law, and you comply, and then you are given immunity for your crimes, then effectively there is no law. The government can then commit any crime it likes (by proxy) and get away with it.

In a civilized society, nobody is above the law, especially the government. Societies where the government is above the law are properly called dictatorships.